Is the media using the superdelegates to make it appear as if Hillary Clinton has an insurmountable lead?

This is an interesting take on the superdelegates and the way the media is reporting them compared to the way they were reported in past elections. Here is where the two Democratic candidates stand when superdelegates are included in the total delegate count:

Currently, Hillary Clinton has just over 1,700 delegates in her quest for the Democrat nomination, while Bernie Sanders has just over 1,000. He will likely pick up additional delegates after Saturday’s final results are tabulated, but, on the surface, he still looks to be trailing Clinton by a wide margin.

But the race is much closer when the superdelegates are not counted:

Setting aside the pledges of the superdelegates, the margin between Clinton and Sanders is much more narrow. Clinton has just over 1,200 delegates awarded through primary and caucus voting, while Sanders has over 1,000. There are still around 2,000 delegates available through the remaining primaries.

Bernie Sanders has been projected to win just over 100 delegates after his big victories yesterday, even counting the delegates that the former Secretary of State will win in her defeats yesterday this makes the race a virtual dead heat if the superdelegates are not counted.

But the superdelegates do count in the total so why shouldn’t the media include them in the total count? Because while these superdelegates are pledged to Hillary Clinton they are not bound to vote for her at the convention.

Setting aside the pledges of the superdelegates, the margin between Clinton and Sanders is much more narrow. Clinton has just over 1,200 delegates awarded through primary and caucus voting, while Sanders has over 1,000. There are still around 2,000 delegates available through the remaining primaries.

Because of this the media has never included the superdelegates count in the tally in previous elections and history shows us this is proper:

One of the more disengenuous actions of the media in this primary season has been to count “superdelegates” in Clinton’s tally of delegates. The media didn’t do this in 2008, when she also had a huge lead in the number of superdelegates who were pledged to her before the DNC convention.

In 2008, the media mentioned her overwhelming support from superdelegates, but it was treated as almost a seperate primary and wasn’t included in her overall delegate count. This made sense, because their votes weren’t bound to any candidate until the convention. Indeed, the primary really turned in Obama’s favor after many of these superdelegates announced publicly they were switching their support or moving to neutral.

So why is the media changing the way it reports the superdelegate count and including it in the official delegate count when they have not done so before? I think the answer is fairly obvious: they are trying to skew the results in favor of Hillary Clinton in order to dissuade Bernie Sanders supporters from going to the polls to vote for their candidate by making it appear as if the candidate does not have a chance.

I have to believe that this is a coordinated effort between the mainstream media, the Democratic party, and Hillary Clinton and if this is true I find it interesting, as the article points out, that the party named after democracy is using an oligarchical system to stifle democracy…

Hillary Clinton has adopted Elizabeth Warren’s mantra about the system being rigged and in this case they appear to be right, but somehow I do not think this is what they are talking about…

The dog and pony show lust go on. If Moe Ginsberg cooperates after he loses the nomination he will be rewarded, maybe as ambassador to Cuba where he can rub elbows with some real fellow commies and Mrs Bernie, with her experience in misappropriating funds at the university level, would be a perfect fit as secretary of education. Nothing more than hope and change brought to us by democrats. Stay tuned.

The take I get on all of this, is with the superdelegates,,,they do not need for us to vote….hope others don’t think this and just not bother going to the voting places…it sure sounds like we are useless with what we want, doesn’t it?

The good news in all of this is that it is only the Democrats who use this system, the Republicans have some superdelegates but they are bound to vote for the candidate who won their states primary. At least on the first ballot, after that they are free to change.

‘A Chilling Description of Our World… from a 1981 Movie: This weekend, the Facebook page Anonymous posted a short clip from the 1981 movie My Dinner with Andre that went viral. In the clip, one of the characters provides an absolutely chilling perspective on the world in 1981—one that in many ways applies to today, and has even perhaps been magnified.’ Good one Lou ~Thanks!
Reality

What comes to mind about this is, if there’s no ‘written down acct.’ that can be used as a foundation of truth and is reliable (outside of the realm of human conditioning or indoctrination) that book would be very valuable and be under great attack to disqualify it by the lying and thieving rulers (Totalitarianism)!

Host Joe Scarborough even went so far as to admit the media’s complicity in the process with regard to superdelegates. He notes:

“And I know the Republican party wishes they rigged the process as well as the Democratic party did right now, because they could rig it against Trump — but the Democratic party rigs their process so that these superdelegates, which by the way can move any direction they want, actually skew the process and the reporting so badly that the voters actually don’t have their say when it comes to voting.” http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/

Isn’t Joe a REPUBLICAN? I often thought he is a poor one IF he is, but that is what I read. And who is to say the Republicans are not rigging the vote as the Democrats do? It sure as heck looks that way to me. We do not count, but we already figured that one out.

Technically he is a Republican however I firmly believe that the Democrats, Republicans, the media, and Donald Trump are all on the same side. They are creating chaos and dissension and the end game here is to ensure two things: Ted Cruz (because he has pissed off the Republican establishment) does not get the nomination, and second that Hillary Clinton is the next President. The Republican establishment would rather see Clinton as President than Cruz.